i dtraced login, and then su to avoid the vhangup, but found nothing more than "/bin/sh : EACCES". this isnt a problem of shell: I get the same thing with bash.

i looked at tinylogin sourcecode, but found nothing that can explain in detail which operation in the (execv "/bin/bash") call is not allowed, nothing more than strace or ltrace. Any idea? I repeat, i dont really need it, it's just for the fun of finding the reason why...

A $? is a special variable that holds the return status of the last run program. It will generally hold '0' after a successful command._________________Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib

I think this poll is closed but as stated Options are good! Thats what draws most of us to Linux in the first place. I realize that its old school now but in my early SCO days we were always discouraged from using a root login except for the highest level admin. functions. My Puppy is running on a home network and at times I worry about some users having root privileges, so my vote would have been in favor of multiuser option. I would like the root option for single stand alone systems.

Nathan, Great job on the blog. In fact if you don't mind I would like to paraphrase you with a couple of NT clients allowing anyone to install anything. Thanks, CDD

anyway i still don't get why some people just don't want multi user.... like on my slackware box that i am trying to build T2/puppy on i can set that up to autologin to root just like puppy does.... of course its not automatic in slackware but it would be the default of course in puppy_________________Taking Puppy Linux to the limit of perfection. meanwhile try "puppy pfix=duct_tape" kernel parem eater.
X86: Sager NP6110 3630QM 16GB ram, Tyan Thunder 2 2x 300Mhz
Sun: SS2 , LX , SS5 , SS10 , SS20 ,Ultra 1, Ultra 10 , T2000
Mac: Platinum Plus, SE/30

My guess is the slight impact it would have on creating packages and the opportunity cost of doing all the work - there are other things more important that could be done instead.

Of course, what's important is relative.

Or maybe they just don't realize that, like you said, we wouldn't actually be giving up the auto-login-straight-to-root deal that we have now. Just making it so that we can disable that and log in as a user (or even set it to auto-log-in as a user)._________________Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib

my guess is the latter... as far as i know it just doesn't affect that many packages (X of course can't think of the others off the top of my head) since most programs (excluding stuff written just for puppy) are design to run as a user because that is the norm_________________Taking Puppy Linux to the limit of perfection. meanwhile try "puppy pfix=duct_tape" kernel parem eater.
X86: Sager NP6110 3630QM 16GB ram, Tyan Thunder 2 2x 300Mhz
Sun: SS2 , LX , SS5 , SS10 , SS20 ,Ultra 1, Ultra 10 , T2000
Mac: Platinum Plus, SE/30

I have been able to add users with adduser in version 4.1 Puppy. I did have to
create /home manually. Also Had to move the following from /etc to /tmp/etc
during the "remaster process: inittab, passwd and shadow.
The inittab file was changed to get a login prompt (got this from another poet).
This did allow me to login as the new user, however there was no home directory!

In my opinion if there was a way to selectively include the /home directory (and
all of it's subdirectories), each user could remaster their CDs to be root only or
multi user.

Of the hordes of Puppy Linux users and visitors to the forum, only 15 people have voted on the related poll ... since May 2008.

What more does it take to put this root/user holy war to rest?

Just curious ..._________________hangout: ##b0rked on irc.freenode.net
diversion:http://alienjeff.net - visit The Fringe
quote: "The foundation of authority is based upon the consent of the people." - Thomas Hooker

Of the hordes of Puppy Linux users and visitors to the forum, only 15 people have voted on the related poll ... since May 2008.

What more does it take to put this root/user holy war to rest?

Just curious ...

well lets put it this way, I enjoy being root all the time, Because of what I do for puppy, Buttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt We do get a heck of a lot of post from new users that want multi-users accounts. Its almost like we have 2 versions of puppy, One for developers with devx included, and one for regular linux users who want to have a security blanket. Or has kids and wants to keep their pc's safe from them.
ttuuxxx

well lets put it this way, I enjoy being root all the time, Because of what I do for puppy, Buttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt We do get a heck of a lot of post from new users that want multi-users accounts. Its almost like we have 2 versions of puppy, One for developers with devx included, and one for regular linux users who want to have a security blanket. Or has kids and wants to keep their pc's safe from them.
ttuuxxx
-

BINGO! You win!

Our 11 & 12 year olds are responsible & don't mess with system settings, however our precocious and impatient 6yr old is forever trashing the Win2000pro desktop he uses. Some of his learning games require Admin and thus the gates are open - and he uses them - sigh.

I'm planning to set up a shared Puppy 4.xx computer with games - I need to protect Root from the 6yr old and keep him from raiding his brother and sister's game settings (mostly unintentionally but increasingly intentionally) as he has done on other game toys and computers in the past.

So yes, it makes very good sense to allow for User Accounts on shared computers where children are involved._________________Thanks! DavidHome page: http://nevils-station.comDon't googleSearch!http://duckduckgo.com
Puppy Carolina 1.3 & Lighthouse64-b602